Simulating Complex Passing Ship HydrodynamicsPassing Ship Hydrodynamics Scott W. Fenical, PE, D.CE, D.PE [email protected]. Presentation Outline • Passing Ship Effects and

1

Simulating Complex Passing Ship Hydrodynamics

Scott W. Fenical, PE, D.CE, [email protected]

Presentation Outline

• Passing Ship Effects and Model Validations• Broken Bore Formation and Propagation• Harbor Sloshing/Bathtub Effects• Ultra Large Container Vessels• Conclusions

ebb current

Passing Ship Effects

Passing Ship Effects

Validation ‐ Laboratory Passing Vessel Forces REMERY (1974)

-300

-150

0

150

300

0 100 200 300 400 500 600Time (seconds)

Long

itudi

nal L

oad

(met

ric to

ns) Remery Average

VH-LU ModelMeasured Data

-1000

-500

0

500

1000

0 100 200 300 400 500 600Time (seconds)

Late

ral L

oad

(met

ric to

ns)

Remery AverageVH-LU ModelMeasured Data

-40,000

-20,000

0

20,000

40,000

0 100 200 300 400 500 600Time (seconds)

Mom

ent (

met

ric to

n-m

eter

s)

Remery AverageVH-LU ModelMeasured Data

Validation ‐ Laboratory Passing Vessel Forces MARIN (2008)

-600

-400

-200

0

200

400

600

850 900 950 1000 1050 1100 1150 1200 1250 1300

Time (sec)

Sur

ge F

orce

(kN

)

Measured SurgeVH-LU SurgeMeasured SwayVH-LU Sway

-15,000

-10,000

-5,000

0

5,000

10,000

15,000

850 950 1050 1150 1250Time (sec)

Yaw

Mom

ent (

kN-m

)

Measured Yaw

VH-LU Yaw

-300

-200

-100

0

100

200

300

850 900 950 1000 1050 1100 1150 1200 1250 1300

Time (sec)

Sur

ge F

orce

(kN

)

Measured SurgeVH-LU SurgeMeasured SwayVH-LU Sway

-6,000

-4,000

-2,000

0

2,000

4,000

6,000

850 950 1050 1150 1250

Time (sec)

Yaw

Mom

ent (

kN-m

)

Measured Yaw

VH-LU Yaw

Data from van Wijhe et al. 2008

Passing Ship Speed: 5.5 knotsPassing Ship Distance: 75 m, 150 m

Harbor Sloshing/Bathtub Effects

Disney Dream5/1/2014 05:30 Arrival

West Gage East Gage


-1.0

-0.8

-0.6

-0.4

-0.2

0.0

0.2

0.4

0.6

0.8

5/12/14 21:36 5/12/14 21:38 5/12/14 21:41 5/12/14 21:44 5/12/14 21:47 5/12/14 21:50 5/12/14 21:53 5/12/14 21:56 5/12/14 21:59

Norweigan Gem


WSE[ft]

Summer 2014 Field Campaign

-1.0

-0.8

-0.6

-0.4

-0.2

0.0

0.2

0.4

0.6

0.8

5/12/14 10:53 5/12/14 10:56 5/12/14 10:59 5/12/14 11:02 5/12/14 11:05 5/12/14 11:08 5/12/14 11:11 5/12/14 11:13

Norweigan Gem


WSE[ft]

Summer 2014 Field Campaign

Harbor Sloshing/Bathtub EffectsSummer 2015 Field Campaign

Disney Magic

Norwegian Gem

‐1

‐0.8

‐0.6

‐0.4

‐0.2

0

0.2

0.4

0.6

0.8

5/8/2016 8:47 5/8/2016 8:54 5/8/2016 9:01 5/8/2016 9:08 5/8/2016 9:15Time

Modeled

Measured

East Gauge

‐1

‐0.8

‐0.6

‐0.4

‐0.2

0

0.2

0.4

0.6

0.8

5/10/2016 1:19 5/10/2016 1:26 5/10/2016 1:33 5/10/2016 1:40 5/10/2016 1:48 5/10/2016 1:55Time

Modeled

Measured

West Gauge

WSE[ft]

WSE[ft]

Harbor Sloshing/Bathtub EffectsSummer 2015 Field Campaign

Norwegian Gem

Disney Fantasy

‐1

‐0.8

‐0.6

‐0.4

‐0.2

0

0.2

0.4

0.6

0.8

5/10/2016 1:19 5/10/2016 1:26 5/10/2016 1:33 5/10/2016 1:40 5/10/2016 1:48 5/10/2016 1:55Time

Modeled

Measured

East Gauge

‐1

‐0.8

‐0.6

‐0.4

‐0.2

0

0.2

0.4

0.6

0.8

5/4/2016 9:54 5/4/2016 9:57 5/4/2016 10:00 5/4/2016 10:03 5/4/2016 10:06 5/4/2016 10:09Time

Modeled

Measured

East Gauge

WSE[ft]

WSE[ft]

Broken Bore Formation and Propagation



Ultra Large Container Vessels

Particular CMA CGM Ben FranklinLength Overall 1309.0 ftLength Between Perpendiculars 1251.4 ftBreadth 177.2 ftMoulded Depth 99.1 ftDraft 52.5 ft





Loads and Motions within Limits?

YES

NO

Full Bridge Simulations

Ship Hydrodynamic Modeling

Dynamic Mooring Analysis

• Berthed vessel size or location• Berthed vessel draft• Berth depth• Mooring arrangement modifications• Berth infrastructure improvements



0.0

1.0

2.0

3.0

4.0

5.0

6.0

0.0 100.0 200.0 300.0 400.0 500.0

Pas

sing

Spe

ed [k

ts]

Clear Distance Between Hulls [ft]



• Thorough analysis performed to determine feasibility of accommodating 18k TEU vessels

• Real-time full bridge simulations determined to be essential for pilot comfort and testing maneuvering-based risk mitigation measures

• Efficient system developed:• Simulator data taken directly into ship hydrodynamic model to

produce loads and moments on berthed vessel(s)• Hydrodynamic model data taken directly into dynamic mooring

analysis to determine potential mooring impacts• Mooring analysis results used to develop guidance for pilots,

risk assessment for berth infrastructure, recommended improvements


• Results indicate that ULCVs are so large that:• Maneuvering safety sensitive to environmental forces• Difficult to control speeds given large swept path with drift angle• Loads on berthed vessels are highly sensitive to speed and passing

distance• Maneuvering improvements crucial to reduce passing speeds• In some instances, ULCVs passing a particular berth pose the

largest new risk to existing berth infrastructure (vs. ULCVs mooring at a berth).

Conclusions• ULCVs require particular attention be paid to passing ship effects.

• Berth infrastructure risk during accommodation of ULCVs should also consider smaller ships passed at berth.

• Validations successfully expanded to include complex (realistic) maneuvering and hydrodynamic processes such as bow solitary waves, broken bore effects, and sloshing/bathtub effects.

• Real maneuvering is often complex, accurate loads on berthed vessels require simulations and/or AIS information.

• Numerical modeling proven critical in the development and testing of measures to mitigate the harmful impacts of these hydrodynamic phenomena.

27

Simulating Complex Passing Ship Hydrodynamics

Scott W. Fenical, PE, D.CE, [email protected]

Simulating Complex Passing Ship HydrodynamicsPassing Ship Hydrodynamics Scott W. Fenical, PE, D.CE, D.PE [email protected]. Presentation Outline • Passing Ship Effects and

Documents